This is an article I found while browsing through the Time Magazine website...-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Why Tony Blair is Right About the Veil
Muslim women can't integrate with British society from behind a mask
By AZADEH MOAVENI/TEHRAN
I dislike the veil. But last year, when I spent a month reporting from all over Afghanistan, I wore one the entire time — because Afghan society cannot yet tolerate unveiled women, and I wanted to connect with people and do my job effectively. I could have gone bare-headed, but it would have sent the hostile message that I didn't care about integrating with the society around me. Did I enjoy having to reconsider my anti-veil stance? Of course not. I detested how wobbly the veil made my beliefs feel, and I trashed it on my flight out of Kabul. But I was the one who had gone to Afghanistan; Afghanistan had not come to me. That made it my responsibility to deal with how my presence affected those around me.

I've thought about this constantly since the debate erupted in Britain over whether Muslim women should wear full-face veils. Prime Minister Tony Blair has backed calls by his party's parliamentary leader, Jack Straw, that Muslim women in Britain should refrain from covering their full faces, particularly when dealing with the wider society. The indignation of British Muslims — their refusal, really, to even have a conversation about the issue — strikes me as particularly delusional, given the climate of post-9/11 Europe. It would be like me traipsing as an American into hostile, post-Taliban Afghanistan, imagining I could bare my hair without alienating those around me. To expect this would involve an unhealthy relationship with reality.

The fact that the issue in Britain does not seem to be the veil per se, but the more extreme full-face covering known as the niqab, the comments of Blair and Straw seem perfectly reasonable to me. Neither of them asked Muslim women to abandon their belief in hijab, or the custom of veiling, altogether. Both zeroed in on the niqab, a minority practice considered extreme by even mainstream Muslim standards. (The niqab tradition is confined to certain regions of the Muslim world, parts of the Gulf, and Pakistan; a similar covering is known as the burqa in Afghanistan.) I come from a Muslim family and have spent years living in various Muslim communities around the Middle East. Every single Muslim female friend I've had, from pious to secular, veiled to vixen, has been unable to befriend, or even hold a proper conversation with a niqab-wearer. The young son of a close friend, raised in a large Muslim family in a large Muslim country, calls them "ninja ladies." Covering the face, whether in Yorkshire or Beirut, seems to send a universal message of separateness. If the full-face veil is considered creepy by many Muslim women in the Middle East, why wouldn't it cause a twinge of unease among ordinary British people with no tradition of veiling at all?

The idea that women in niqab can assimilate properly into a community or be effective as teachers distresses me, because it is at heart disingenuous. Clearly, meaningful social exchange requires a face. And the argument that non-verbal communication is inessential only addresses half the problem. The obscured woman, who can see her interlocutor clearly through her slits, is enjoying contact with a face; it's the other party, conversing with a tiny black tent, that bears the burden of the discomfort. It would be more sincere for niqab-wearers to say that they accept the cost of refusing to compromise on the niqab; that it will be considered provocative by their non-Muslim fellow citizens, that it might slow their own assimilation into British society.

It's no coincidence the British debate surrounds a teaching assistant who refused to take off her full-face veil around male colleagues. Niqabs in school are an even more delicate issue than niqabs at the supermarket or the park, for teachers serve as role models to children, and the niqab sends a controversial message that may or may not be appropriate in the classroom. Even more so than the headscarf, the niqab is premised on the traditional Muslim belief that uncovered women are sexually stimulating to men, who are presumed to be incapable of controlling themselves. In a Muslim society where many men hold such an ugly view of their own gender, perhaps a heavily veiled woman connotes no insult. But to a Western man living in a culture with very different norms of gender relations, the idea that a woman is covering her face and body because she considers him a potential sexual predator can seem deeply disrespectful.

Non-Muslim adult men may find this unpleasant, but in a diverse society, they are probably expected to just deal with it. Schoolchildren are a different matter altogether. They may not be briefed on the roots of such Islamic mores, but they'll still wonder why they can't see their teacher's face. I wouldn't want a niqab-wearer as a role model for my child, and I wouldn't want to explain that his teacher considers her bare face somehow immoral. It is ironic that living in an Islamic theocracy, this is something I would never have to do, while non-Muslim British parents are being asked to do so on grounds of cultural tolerance.

None of this is to say that I consider the wearing of the more commonplace form of hijab, a headscarf, objectionable. If people, British or otherwise, feel uncomfortable because a woman has a scarf on her head, that's not a concern to be taken seriously. Men who wear unattractive baseball caps make me uncomfortable, but I've gotten used to the world not being aesthetically designed to my taste. No, the issue is very specifically the niqab, and the obstacle it poses to human interaction and smooth integration. What does seem obvious is that the assimilation of British Muslims is a troubled process, and that intrusive squares of cloth should remain an open, but peripheral debate.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Personally I don not agree...But however she raises a few worthy arguments...

What are your views and what do you think???

__________________
THIS SOLDIER IS LOCKED-ON, DIALED-IN AND READY TO STRIKE

Excellent article but the author misses one crucial point: the whole veil issue is not simply one of integration or rationality, it's a political statement where these so called muslim feminists are making a statement against the so called "western" rationality.

Regardless what your perception is on hijab, you are in a western country so dont accept people to accept your religious beliefs all the time. If you are so keen to follow your religion the hardcore way like that women that got suspended from UK school, then you might as well migrate to Saudi not US or UK.

In most muslim countries(pakistan, saudi, indonesia) there isnt much tolerence towards non-muslims and their beliefs. So dont expect the special religious treatment towards you all the time.

Originally Posted by adolf_hitler
In most muslim countries(pakistan, saudi, indonesia) there isnt much tolerence towards non-muslims and their beliefs. So dont expect the special religious treatment towards you all the time.

Muslim countries like Turkey Malaysia and Indonesia are quite tolerant towards non-Muslims. And here we are talking about the UK , a democracy. You cant justify things in UK by saying it happens in Saudi Arabia to non-Muslims.

Dubai is supposedly a Muslim place but many britishers dress in tank tops and miniskirts and dont give 2 hoots about the fact that its a Muslim place. Their excuse is that they are free to dress as they see fit, no one has the right to stop them. Similarly, Muslims also have the right to dress as they want.

Originally Posted by Banglatiger84
Muslim countries like Turkey Malaysia and Indonesia are quite tolerant towards non-Muslims. And here we are talking about the UK , a democracy. You cant justify things in UK by saying it happens in Saudi Arabia to non-Muslims.

Dubai is supposedly a Muslim place but many britishers dress in tank tops and miniskirts and dont give 2 hoots about the fact that its a Muslim place. Their excuse is that they are free to dress as they see fit, no one has the right to stop them. Similarly, Muslims also have the right to dress as they want.

I have been to Dubai and have seen many westerners but none with tank tops and definitely not miniskirts. Its upto the Dubai goverment or king or whatever to enforce these things. Coz if he doesnt, then I wouldnt give a hoot either let alone westerners. I used to wear shorts in Bangladesh, and guess what? Its a muslim country too.

Liberal countries like Turkey, Malaysia have accepted this freedom so one can walk covered in full veil or with miniskirt. My point is not many people have accepted the fact that veil is the normal in society, particularly in western country. You have to respect their view coz its their country. Democracy or not.

Originally Posted by Rubu
The point is not veil or not to veil. the point is freedom to do what I want to do. these western countries always talk as if they are the sole agent of freedom but are not willing to practice it.

Originally Posted by samircreep
Excellent article but the author misses one crucial point: the whole veil issue is not simply one of integration or rationality, it's a political statement where these so called muslim feminists are making a statement against the so called "western" rationality.

Yeah...I'm getting the feel of what you mean...But care to elaborate on it a bit more....

Originally Posted by samircreep
Excellent article but the author misses one crucial point: the whole veil issue is not simply one of integration or rationality, it's a political statement where these so called muslim feminists are making a statement against the so called "western" rationality.

This is exactly how The Economist commented.

Did not fully read the main article posted here, but if the Niqab is worn only by a "minority" of women, then why is everybody concerned about its impact, including this typically going-to-hell-no-doubt-American-wanna-be Iranian psychotic (sp?)writer.

The lead article is lame drivel. How can we take it seriously when she demonstrates a clear bias in the very first sentence? Then she goes on to compare the actions of people in the UK (democracy, 4th largest economy in the world, 99% literacy, GDP per capita of $30,000) with Afghanistan (in civil war, GDP per capita of $800, literacy rate of 36%). I remember now why I avoid Time mag, the quality is appalling.

This problem is multidimensional and I doubt there is any one view that is 'correct'. On one hand, the political, religious or moral agenda behind these women's desire to wear niqabs should be irrelevant because it is simply freedom of expression. (The same freedom of expression that was so important to cartoonists around the world recently). On the otherhand it is a disconcerting practice to the majority mainstream population and therefore will invariably lead to some objection.

Jack Straw's discomfort is in someways understandable - even I feel strange talking to people wearing niqabs, but I also feel uncomfortable talking to long haired tatooed buffoons with excessive piercings. This suggests that the problem is not the niqabbed woman or the tatooed man but rather, my own prejudice. I should work on building my spoken communication skills so I comprehend what a person says rather than be fixated with what they are wearing.

HOWEVER, we should be able to draw the line in places like schools, hospitals etc where clothing can impede or affect work. We should be able to place some common rules of decorum that is acceptable to most people in the population - no niqabs, miniskirts, tradesman's shorts and definitely no tattooed men with excessive piercings in schools.

It's an opinion piece, obviously the author is going to take a side, what did u expect?

Ok adel, I'll elaborate.I think the best way to go about doing that is to go about disecting the author's argument and see how much water it holds (at least according to moi).

1. Muslim countries are just as intolerant to non-muslims, so muslims shouldn't expect tolerance when they live in non-muslim places.

This is a central argument throughout the author's piece and it's a pretty lame one. i agree with the muslims being intolerant part though: from my experience, muslims are either very intolerant or just intolerant, they're basically like what the christians were in the latter parts of the 15th and early 16th centuries. But that in now way means that intolerance should be tolerated in any form either in muslim or non-muslim places.It's basically saying that just cos i was rude to my parents when I was a kid, my kids should be rude to me.No, one rude kid is one too many thank you!

2. The veil is impractical and joked about even in muslim countries so why tolerate it here?

The impractical aspects of veiling i think pretty much most people agree with.But the problematic aspects of veiling, methinks, should be independent of the cultural milieu of the veiler. this i can elaborate on later.

3. The veiler has a political agenda.

Yes, this to me is the stongest observation about whats going on these days and the author unfortunately has hardly hit upon it. Veiling nowadays is just as much about religion as it is with identity politics since religion is intrinsically political as well. What jack straw et al. don't seem to realize that most of the women taking up the veil are not deeply religious; they are veiling because they want to make a political statement about their identity and the veil is a manifestation of pereived hyopcrissies and attack of identity that muslims now suffer in the west. To ignore the political aspect of veiling is to miss the point altogether.

I'd just like to add a side note on personal attacks made my people on "muslims" who dare to criticize their kin. I find it amazing that any such criticism is immediately branded as a sell-out. Thus taslima Nasreen, Salman Rushdie, et al have all sold out to the west: they are basically trying to be shada chamras according to the intellectual bulwarks of the muslim world.

This is a very very dangerous phenomena. just imagine if german nazi detractors were simply dismissed as jewish sympathizers and put to jail in the 30s (wait a second, that DID happen hehe). All ideas, regarless of who they come from, should be considered from itheir own merit just as every delivery should be played according to its individual worth, and not judged on the repute or political belief of the bowler

Originally Posted by samircreep
It's an opinion piece, obviously the author is going to take a side, what did u expect?

Ok adel, I'll elaborate.I think the best way to go about doing that is to go about disecting the author's argument and see how much water it holds (at least according to moi).

1. Muslim countries are just as intolerant to non-muslims, so muslims shouldn't expect tolerance when they live in non-muslim places.

This is a central argument throughout the author's piece and it's a pretty lame one. i agree with the muslims being intolerant part though: from my experience, muslims are either very intolerant or just intolerant, they're basically like what the christians were in the latter parts of the 15th and early 16th centuries. But that in now way means that intolerance should be tolerated in any form either in muslim or non-muslim places.It's basically saying that just cos i was rude to my parents when I was a kid, my kids should be rude to me.No, one rude kid is one too many thank you!

2. The veil is impractical and joked about even in muslim countries so why tolerate it here?

The impractical aspects of veiling i think pretty much most people agree with.But the problematic aspects of veiling, methinks, should be independent of the cultural milieu of the veiler. this i can elaborate on later.

3. The veiler has a political agenda.

Yes, this to me is the stongest observation about whats going on these days and the author unfortunately has hardly hit upon it. Veiling nowadays is just as much about religion as it is with identity politics since religion is intrinsically political as well. What jack straw et al. don't seem to realize that most of the women taking up the veil are not deeply religious; they are veiling because they want to make a political statement about their identity and the veil is a manifestation of pereived hyopcrissies and attack of identity that muslims now suffer in the west. To ignore the political aspect of veiling is to miss the point altogether.

I'd just like to add a side note on personal attacks made my people on "muslims" who dare to criticize their kin. I find it amazing that any such criticism is immediately branded as a sell-out. Thus taslima Nasreen, Salman Rushdie, et al have all sold out to the west: they are basically trying to be shada chamras according to the intellectual bulwarks of the muslim world.

This is a very very dangerous phenomena. just imagine if german nazi detractors were simply dismissed as jewish sympathizers and put to jail in the 30s (wait a second, that DID happen hehe). All ideas, regarless of who they come from, should be considered from itheir own merit just as every delivery should be played according to its individual worth, and not judged on the repute or political belief of the bowler

okie..why not the british politians talks about sarder/sikh guys? ...they are also differentiating them from the society by wearing that turban on top, aren't they? if they can teach in the uni with the black/white satellite on why not a muslim woman can wear whatever she wants??

Originally Posted by adolf_hitler
My point is not many people have accepted the fact that veil is the normal in society, particularly in western country. You have to respect their view coz its their country. Democracy or not.

hmm just a thought.... what happens if u r a westerner AND a muslim.... then its your country too....

Originally Posted by Hasib
hmm just a thought.... what happens if u r a westerner AND a muslim.... then its your country too....

In that case you too are a minority if your thoughts, way of life changes from ur fellow countrymen by ur conversion or etc. Same goes with those ppl who convert from Islam to whatever in a muslim countries.